Farms Must Be Exempted From Emission Rules

Many would quickly forget how we tried to start a war with China over a silly spy plane. But then memories are even shorter. How many remember contaminated vegetables killing or sickening people because emissions from upstream factory farms in CA. They assume you will forget. From the Washington Post of 26 Feb 2008:

Farms May Be Exempted From Emission Rules
Lawmakers from farm states have repeatedly tried to attach provisions exempting farms from emissions reporting. Last March, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) and more than 130 lawmakers from agricultural states sponsored a bill that would delist manure as an environmental pollutant under the Superfund law.

The measure came after the cities of Waco, Tex., and Tulsa, Okla., and the state of Oklahoma filed lawsuits charging factory farms nearby with polluting water sources. ...

But when Johnson testified before Congress last year on the proposed exemption, the association said, he did not tell lawmakers of the local officials' opposition. Asked why by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the EPA responded in writing, saying that the agency "did not interpret the discussion as representing an opposition of state and local air pollution control agencies to our proposed plan."

The exemption is requested by big factory farms; opposed by those who live there. Under George Jr, K-Street money to politicians has increased by over a factor of 10.

Are they wacko Democrats and Republicans; or independents who instead work for the people? You are expected to forget all those contaminated vegetables last year. You are expected only to remember what propaganda machines tell you to think this week. That evil EPA regulation must be killed. What else might die?

Why should those regulations be eliminated? Because nothing toxic comes from factory farms. Forget last year's news. It is good for a Democrat or Republican when you forget.

tw;435013 wrote:

...a silly spy plane...

And that says it all. :headshake

btw, there was no near war, attempts to start one, or desire on anyone's part to do so...

That e. coli spinach came from an organic farm, I'm sure of it.

Phfft! Facts. You can use them to prove anything.

--Homer Simpson

please don't let facts get in the way of tw's point.

There must be provisions for the dumping of manure from factory farms surely.

With regard to the actual intent of the thread (from what I can tell anyway). Just about anything can be a pollutant if it's in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as any plant can be a weed if it grows where you don't want it.

Well said, Ali.

Aliantha;435277 wrote:

There must be provisions for the dumping of manure from factory farms surely.

If I had my way, I would take all the shitty effluent from factory farms to big algae ponds in the desert, use the shit as fertiliser to grow algae, and produce biodiesel as a by-product.

Where's there's muck there's brass.

Aliantha;435277 wrote:

There must be provisions for the dumping of manure from factory farms surely. ... Just about anything can be a pollutant if it's in the wrong place at the wrong time, just as any plant can be a weed if it grows where you don't want it.

What is a pollutant is on a list. A list that factory farms want to exempted from. Where a pollutant can and cannot be (using numbers) is also defined. Manure is not dumped. It is processed. But some would 'accidentally' dump it. Clearly the State of Oklahoma must be wrong. Clearly no contaminated cauliflower last year was sickening people.

There must be provisions for the dumping Aliantha's shit somewhere? Really?

What is your point tw? Just give us the abridged version huh?

Do you somehow get the idea that I don't understand what pollutants are and what happens to manure from factory farms? If so, you're mistaken.

Are you trying to make some backhanded joke about how people's political affiliations change to suit themselves? If so, it's not very clear.

On a regular farm, the manure goes back of the fields that grow the food for the livestock.

The factory farms produce an order of magnitude more manure and has no land to spread it on, because the livestock feed is grown elsewhere.

Shipping the manure to where the livestock feed is grown, is much more expensive than using chemical fertilizer made from oil.

The bottom line take priority over the environment.

xoxoxoBruce;435654 wrote:

Shipping the manure to where the livestock feed is grown, is much more expensive than using chemical fertilizer made from oil.

Another example of why oil prices are too low?

Meanwhile, the City of Philadelphia has no problem finding markets for their manure.

tw;435664 wrote:

Meanwhile, the City of Philadelphia has no problem finding markets for their manure.

Yeah - like the Eagles, they're all full of shit! :lol2:

classicman;435692 wrote:

Yeah - like the Eagles, they're all full of shit! :lol2:

:D

classicman;435692 wrote:

Yeah - like the Eagles, they're all full of shit!

Not true. The Eagles got the shit kicked out of them this year (but not as much as Miami).

xoxoxoBruce;435654 wrote:

On a regular farm, the manure goes back of the fields that grow the food for the livestock.

The factory farms produce an order of magnitude more manure and has no land to spread it on, because the livestock feed is grown elsewhere.

Shipping the manure to where the livestock feed is grown, is much more expensive than using chemical fertilizer made from oil.

The bottom line take priority over the environment.

Now there's somewhere else to ship the manure to--the digester lagoons. Of course, you have to be near a gas pipeline to feed it back into the grid, but I wonder why this couldn't be used in a standalone scenario for cogeneration of energy for the large farm much like sawmills use sawdust as a complementary sources of energy used to power the processes that create more sawdust (and wood products, of course).
California cows start passing gas to the grid

Tue Mar 4, 2008 6:30pm EST

By Nichola Groom

RIVERDALE, California (Reuters) - Imagine a vat of liquid cow manure covering the area of five football fields and 33 feet deep. Meet California's most alternative new energy.

On a dairy farm in the Golden State's agricultural heartland, utility PG&E Corp began on Tuesday producing natural gas derived from manure, in what it hopes will be a new way to power homes with renewable, if not entirely clean, energy.

BigV, I was involved with a project in Colorado that did just that. The digester produced a gas that was used to run two gensets: one used a modified diesel engine and the other used a Capstone microturbine. (I think they added a Stirling engine later.) There was a lot of sulfur in the gas, because of which the MT had to have lots of expensive gas cleanup equipment. The diesel engine just required frequent oil changes.

HungLikeJesus;436902 wrote:

... and the other used a Capstone microturbine.

What is a capstone microturbine?

HungLikeJesus;436902 wrote:

BigV, I was involved with a project in Colorado that did just that. The digester produced a gas that was used to run two gensets: one used a modified diesel engine and the other used a Capstone microturbine. (I think they added a Stirling engine later.) There was a lot of sulfur in the gas, because of which the MT had to have lots of expensive gas cleanup equipment. The diesel engine just required frequent oil changes.

Read the article and see where they remove the hydrogen sulfide leaving 99% pure methane.

wrt Stirling Engines... I never managed to get my mind around how they work. But the diagrams are certainly elegant.

Now that I think about it, what role does the diesel play in the genset? Just a diesel engine that runs methane? I don't follow you there. Can you explain more?

tw;436906 wrote:

What is a capstone microturbine?

Capstone is a manufacturer of microturbines. Here's their website: http://www.capstoneturbine.com/

The microturbine used in that installation was a 30-kW unit.

BigV;436908 wrote:

Read the article and see where they remove the hydrogen sulfide leaving 99% pure methane.

wrt Stirling Engines... I never managed to get my mind around how they work. But the diagrams are certainly elegant.

Now that I think about it, what role does the diesel play in the genset? Just a diesel engine that runs methane? I don't follow you there. Can you explain more?

A genset is just an electric generator with something to spin it. This can be a steam turbine, a gas turbine, a gasoline engine, a diesel engine, a Stirling engine, etc. In this case, a Caterpillar engine was modified to operate on methane (~natural gas), then re-jetted to be able to use the digester gas, which was (I think) about 45% methane, with the remainder being mostly CO2 and CO. Natural gas is about 1000 Btu per cubic foot and digester gas is about 400 to 500 Btu/cubic foot, so the engine requires larger fuel lines or is de-rated for the lower-energy gas. (It's been about 5 years since I worked on this project, so some of the details might not be correct.)

In addition to spinning the generator to produce electricity, the engines also produce waste heat, which is routed back to the digester to maintain the temperature at around 105 deg F, so this is considered a cogen application.

You can read more about the AD project and see pictures here and here (links are to pdf documents).

BigV;436887 wrote:

snip~ but I wonder why this couldn't be used in a standalone scenario for cogeneration of energy for the large farm ~snip

Some of the larger dairy farms in VT are doing just that, with seed money from the state.
They use the methane to run generators for power and when the process is complete they recycle the bedding for another $50/$60 K savings per year.
It costs about half a million to set the system, up on a farm with sufficient livestock to make it practical.